AT&T Uneasy with Clearwire Portion of Sprint-Softbank Deal

Good

Any thing that weakens the market position of ATT is better for the consumer in the long run. The duopoly of ATT-Verizon sets the stage of the entire US wireless market. Any thing that would weaken that has great potential to benefit the consumer by creating greater competition between the carriers.

Ever notice how when you add every thing Up the wireless plans are pretty much the same price?

stevelvl said:Any thing that weakens the market position of ATT is better for the consumer in the long run. Ever notice how when you add every thing Up the wireless plans are pretty much the same price?

Why just AT&T? Verizon is a good amount bigger then AT&T is. you hurt at&t to much and verizon is going to kill everyone. We WANT at&t and verizon to be big. this means a better coverage and service because they have more resources to build a better network then multiple little guys. SOME monopolies are a GOOD thing, (water, gas, electricity) Maybe cell service..?? I'm just saying there are benifits to a monopoly. Imagine having one carrier worldwide.??? All the phones could be built to just work on one te...(continues)

Monopoly isn't a bad thing. But when a for profit corporation is a monopoly, and it can raise prices and change terms when, if, and how it wants, then yes, it's very bad. The wireless industry is like the wild west right now with very limited government regulation. One day it will change, just like when they broke up Bell in the 80's. Isn't it funny how all these things come full circle?

Never. One world government? That's laughable. No country in the world would ever allow that, especially the United States.

As far as cell phone regulation goes, there really has to be a big problem first before somebody will step in to fix it, and thus far, there may be a problem, but it's not a big problem. There isn't enough suffering yet for anybody to step in to change anything.

100% perfectly put. And though nothing has been that severe where there is public outcry over a cell companies' practices...you can see where there is blatant money grabs. One day it may become overbearing. We payed about $30 a month for cell phone bills 10 years ago. Now a good portion pay $130. Who knows what will happen in the next coming decade.

Ok. one world government seems crazy but read some of the talks between the UN and the US. Sure some south African government doesn't want it. But when you say the USA would never allow that, I'm not sure what your thinking. Sure we would never allow European countries or china to control us, but if Obama had the choice to control them? There have been some pretty strong people backing a currency to unify the euro and the dollar. (with our dollar not being worth much anymore don't think that will work anymore) but a government (like an overpowered UN peacekeepers) has been on the table multiple times. Sure this would not cover everyone (obvisously) but the major powers would have no real reason to not join. Its about the money and the big bu...(continues)

(1) The Islamist nations of the world would engage in Terrorist Acts of a massive scale if the US and Europe tried to bring their countries under an umbrella with them. The American people (and most of the rest of the world) will not tolerate living in daily fear of death and destruction,or having TSA-like passage points placed every 10 miles down every interstate.

(2) I do believe that government intervention with cellular will happen in next decade, unless the industry self-regulates and VZW & AT&T voluntarily sell off large portions of their operations to new competitors. Just like Ma Bell.

(3) If you think import tariffs are the way to help the average American, you're not familiar with the dynamics of international trade:

CellStudent said:The American people (and most of the rest of the world) will not tolerate living in daily fear of death and destruction,or having TSA-like passage points placed every 10 miles down every interstate.

My only point was that the global economy (or aka money) trumps the politics so if a one governing body makes more sense to the global economy then a one world (or large central governing force for the major powers anyways) then that is what will happen. Who cares if we like the french or not. Money makes the choice these days..

(if it were just about the USA as a country we'd build a build wall around our borders, drill oil in ...(continues)

1. Online business do not require any licensing. Do not confuse a business license for FCC approval. A license is simply filling a form and getting a permit. Wireless carriers have to petition the fcc with a detailed proposal then the fcc makes a determination if they can operate or not.

2. in terms of spectrum the FCC mandates that there can be no more than 4 nationwide carriers and 3 regional carriers in any given aria and that any carrier cannot own more than 40% of the spectrum licenses. When companies want to swap or buy spectrum they have to get FCC approval to make the transaction to make sure they do not violate these guidelines and other companies can petition against it.3. In 2011 Tmobile was threatened by the FCC when staff ...(continues)

What you're saying is Insane. The US is not the only country in north america, are you forgetting about Mexico and Canada? Which are both Soverign nations, Self-governed, and 100% not a part of and separate from the US. You think either of those countries would even Talk to or even Consider this? Hell no. The prime minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, wouldn't even SPEAK to Bush/Obama about a missile defense system, let alone consider it. These countries are NOT fond of the United States. The UN doesnt matter, as far as REAL power goes, they have none. A country can do what it wants to, when it wants to, as long as it's willing to put up with wrath from other countries, and not be a part of the UN. A "world" or "North American Union" gove...(continues)

newfonguy... you missed the point of his comment completely. It was not a pro-Verizon swipe at AT&T, rather it was regarding the current state of the wireless industry in the US and the pricing power jointly exerted by AT&T and Verizion.

I believe that you must understand this as the only portion of the comment you elected to not quote was the following portion which made this clear:

stevelvl said:The duopoly of ATT-Verizon sets the stage of the entire US wireless market. Any thing that would weaken that has great potential to benefit the consumer by creating greater competition between the carriers.

Your comment reveals that you are a kool-aid drinking AT&T fanboy, who can't be taken any more ser...(continues)

The last paragraph is what i hope will happen. I left att for their take it or leave it attitude and didn't bother looking into verizon just because they're just as ridiculously overpriced. 80 billion is a lot and it shows how much of a sure bet they're banking on this acquisition. Asian consumers put up with a lot less crap then we Americans do and that's why they define true quality of service. I know their network will be second to none, I hope they keep their pricing/data structure and draw some serious blood from the other two providers.

vikes0115 said:Your comment reveals that you are a kool-aid drinking AT&T fanboy, who can't be taken any more seriously than those who believe Verizon can do no wrong.

Rather than type everything again. You can go look at the other post i wrote. But Honestly, I'm not much of a Kool-Aid guy. I find it to be too sweet with a fake flavor. I prefer a nice homemade lemonade over a Kool-Aid anytime. Also I currently have sprint and though I respect both Verizon and AT&T for their great business practices you can't blame them for it. I think you missed my point. I did not say Verizon was perfect either rather, you missed including Verizon in your statement. Both Verizon and AT&T are huge so you have stated Ver...(continues)

Seems from this that we are definitely using the web more and more for entertaining purposes vs the first web services that were mainly used for the sharing of knowledge between scientists and computer nerds of the Vacuum tube days. Its a shame we focus more on being entertained then learning...

No firm in any industry should be permitted to control more than 20% of the market share without serious scrutiny of their operations. Doesn't matter whether it's done through acquisitions or natural growth, the market impact is the same.

I'd like to avoid forcing more regulations on any industry, but Verizon and AT&T are very, very close to engaging in monopolistic behaviors and this must not be permitted to happen.

Because FREE markets only work when there is ample consumer choice. When there are fewer than 3 comparable providers of any good or service, the market is no longer "free" even if it can technically be labeled "capitalist" or unregulated.

Those are all government run utilities. those are not privately owned companies.

I'm not sure which country you live in, but my electricity and natural gas are provided by private corporations, not government utilities.

At my parent's home, they even had their household water supplied by a private company until 20 years ago when the owners decided to exit the business and sold the company to the city. Small private water companies still exist in many parts of the country.

My electricity is provided by Alabama Power (Southern Company), my natural gas by a company named Mobile Gas and my water and sewage by Mobile Water. All are private entities who have been granted monopolies and pretty much raise rates at their leisure. Take it or leave it.

Jarahawk said:All are private entities who have been granted monopolies and pretty much raise rates at their leisure. Take it or leave it.

That I know of they all are private and should be is its illegal (even though they bought out gm somehow....) for the government to own a company for obvious reasons. They HAVE been granted monopolies but CANNOT raise rates at their leisure. As being a monitored monopoly the government has to ok any rate changes the company would like to impose.

newfoneguy said:I am also very curious does this include services like water, electrcity, and sewage?

CellStudent said:No firm in any industry should be permitted to control more than 20% of the market share without serious scrutiny of their operations.

I was very careful to include the highlighted part above. Serious scrutiny basically amounts to some form of regulation, whether it's imposed by a government, labor union, or trade association.

Big businesses have to be constrained by something. Ideally, they should be constrained by their competitors, as in a free market system. Quasi-monopolistic industries cannot rely on the ideal solution,...(continues)

Well put. A monopoly is great on paper but the problem with them in real life is the people regulating the companies can become corrupt and this is where everything gets screwed up. This I think is the reason why a free market is the best answer but a socialist sounding politician will always sound better with a large population such as the USA where the wealth is held by a small percentage of people."A government that takes money from Dave to give to Tom will always get the Support of Tom."

I worked in the electricity business with DTE long enough to know that there is a lot of wasted money and resources because DTE is the monopoly energy provider in Metro-Detroit. Free market insures companies spend their resources and money more effi...(continues)